Cyclists &Pavements

[LadyDeliah]

I am involved in various cycling campaign groups and have spent time campaigning within the Green Party on these issues.

I also try to raise awareness whenever the opportunity arises, e.g. the cycle bashing threads that appear on the internet on a regular basis.

Should I post my CV for your approval of my campaigning credentials?

[reeko]

I don't see the connection to your deciding to ride on pavements, other than perhaps you should know better. Have you led / been involved in any direct action involving cyclists using the pavements to highlight the dangers of the road?

[LadyDeliah]

Er road safety, dangerous roads, pavement cycling, shared spaces. Can you not join the dots yourself?

Reeko, you have your way of doing things and others do things differently.

I don't think I have to justify myself in any way, especially when I have explained as fully as I have what my reasons are for the stance I take.

You may not agree with me, that's fair enough. If you like to do things by the book rather than try to challenge things, that's up to you. But I think I've explained my personal position as much as I'm prepared to but I'm totally content to discuss the wider issues of road safety & cycling if you want to.

[reeko]

Nope, because regardless of your campaigning credentials your stated reasons for cycling on pavements don't add up. You say you want to reduce your risk but that would be equally achieved by pushing your bike instead of cycling.

You also imply that it is part of your campaigning in some way, but unless you undertake this activity in a place where it is likely to draw the attention of the authorities then it is a very weak and ineffective protest.

In my opinion you deciding unilaterally that pavements are now shared space weakens the growing influence that cyclists in London are beginning to wield, as you provide an example of cyclists ignoring the rules of the road at their convenience and you encourage other, potentially less considerate and accomplished cyclists to do the same.

Even the best activists get it wrong sometimes (see Ken and the bendy buses), and in this case I think you are potentially harming rather than promoting the interests of cyclists in London.

[Nigello]

Lady D, you are a hoot! If you had an ounce of self-awareness you would see how each self-justifying retort just adds to the blanket of arrogant solipsism you managed to shroud yourself in on your first response. You sound high-handed, self-entitled and - frankly - a little bit socio(cycle)pathic.

I'd love to know what your Green Party higher-ups - always aware that public opinion is very valuable to small, niche parties - think of your particular and peculiar take on sustainable transport and road safety!

[louloulabelle]

Government rules for cyclists

64

You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.

Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129

Just saying.....

[LadyDeliah]

The fixed penalty notice was introduced on 1st August 1999 the Home Office Minister at the time (Paul Boateng) issued the following letter;

?The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required.?

Just saying.....

[taper]

Bit more complex than that.

See here

http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/cycling-and-the-law/

[Zebedee Tring]

The emphasis is on the words "who show consideration to other pavements users when doing so". As so many pedestrians will tell you, there are a growing number of cyclists who do not show consideration to other pavement users and who take the view that they can ridee their bikes where they want with impunity.

[Zebedee Tring]

Thanks, taper.

To quote the Bike Hub website:

"Many cyclists are afraid of fast-moving motorised traffic so cycle on footways. While understandable at certain busy intersections and the like, it?s very much against the law. If a certain stretch of road is deemed too dangerous to cycle on, choose an alternative route (via smartphone apps or online journey planners) or walk your bike on the dangerous stretch. If you ride on the footway, ... you could cop a fine and you may antagonise pedestrians."

That's pretty unequivocal. So prepare to cop a fine LadyDeliah, though you clearly aren't worried about antagonising pedestrians.

[LadyDeliah]

Also:

Kotula v EDF PLC, Morrison Utility Ltd & Birch Ltd

Comment by His Honour Judge Simon Brown QC in the High Court.

?In my judgment, although it is illegal for cyclists to use the pavement (unless it is specifically sanctioned by a local authority for shared use), when weighing up the danger to himself (cp danger to pedestrians) it was a reasonable decision by the Claimant to ride on the pavements in this area rather than the road in the context of the duty of care owed to himself to take reasonable care for his own safety whilst cycling. In my judgment, although illegal and potentially negligent in any action vis a vis a pedestrian, it was not ?blameworthy? in terms of negligence in contributory negligence?

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2010/B11.html

[Mr Goose]

I'm a regular cyclist into the city. I've never had a problem either on the road or the pavement. Plainly you shouldn't cycle on the pavement except where it is safe to do so. I think most people can judge when that is appropriate.

[bon3yard]

Well that's alright then. Judge says it is illegal but not negligent unless you hurt someone.This conveniently ignores the wider issue of the problems that some cyclists picking and choosing when to follow the law cause the rest of us. It simply perpetuates the idea of cyclists as being inconsiderate and lawless, providing fuel for the anti cycling lobby

[LadyDeliah]

Bon3yard, negligence is only relevant if there is some form of injury or damage anyway.

The point the Judge was making was that the cyclists had a duty to look after his own safety and you need to weigh this up when considering the illegal act of cycling on the pavement.

The illegal act would clearly be given more weight if the cyclist had injured a pedestrian as he could be held to have acted negligently, but ordinarily despite it being illegal, it was prudent to avoid the dangerous stretch of road by cycling on the pavement.

[keane]

What about when you are a pedestrian crossing on the green man at a busy junction and a cyclist completely ignores the red light and whizzes through nearly knocking you and your children over as you try and follow the rules and cross the road safely. This has happened to me a lot.

[taper]

Yes, that's bad.

[silverfox]

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> pavement, (giving way to pedestrians at all times)

> on stretches of road that are very dangerous

> because as far as I am concerned, getting home

> alive or without major injury, takes priority over

> your annoyance >

>

> Well, all that I can say is that if you (or

> indeed any other cyclist) hit me while you're

> cycling on the pavement, I will be bloddy annoyed

> and will act in self-defence (that is, if I am

> still conscious).

I've said it before until I'm blue in the face. This government has to get serious and impose an insurance requirement on all cyclists on the road.

The government, media in general, and many people on this thread, are negligent in encouraging people to take up cycling without adequate training and insurance.

Tonight's Evening Standard carries the sad story of the death of a cyclist at Archway this morning. an articulated lorry was involved again. The presumption is it was the fault of the lorry.

There are several questions I would like answered as to the facts surrounding this accident but here is not the place to raise them.

As for the post I've quoted, you can get home safely on foot, on a bus or taxi if you don't want to drive. There's too much of an attitude of out of my way I'm a cyclist and two fingers to you.

[Jeremy]

In an ideal world cyclists would pass a test, and would then carry a licence and receive points for offences such as riding on the pavement or jumping red lights (particularly pedestrian crossings). In the real world... unenforcable and unworkable.

[mynamehere]

http://www.crashmap.co.uk/Search

play with this

and please do post when you find anyone other than drivers causing mayhem year after year to themselves, to other drivers, to cyclists and to pedestrians

your posts about cyclists as the be all and end all of street problems are paranoid obsessive and the wilful pretence that drivers are hard done defies all evidence for 100 years across the face of the earth

no one should ever drive a car without first considering if they can walk or cycle or take public transit

I also think cyclists need to stay off the pavement except where indicated by a blue sign like on the South Circular

I think pedestrians need to be more considerate of other pedestrians

But all of this pales when faced with the reality of what a car is. The "footprint" of a car? There is no problem like cars on planet earth:

Environmental Impact

Production and Destruction

Cars consume a lot of energy before they ever make it to the open road. Automotive production leaves a giant footprint because materials like steel, rubber, glass, plastics, paints, and many more must be created before a new ride is ready to roll.

Similarly, the end of a car?s life doesn?t mark the end of its environmental impact. Plastics, toxic battery acids, and other products may stay in the environment. Fortunately, junkyard pile-ups are becoming much smaller than they were in the past. About three-quarters of today?s average car, including the bulk of a steel frame, can be recycled.

Production, recycling, and disposal costs to the environment are difficult to quantify and largely beyond the control of most consumers. They are also relatively minor. Most of an automobiles? environmental impact, perhaps 80 to 90 percent, will be due to fuel consumption and emissions of air pollution and greenhouse gases that climate scientists say are driving global warming. Fortunately, the level of that impact is very much under the control of the driver.

Fuel Costs

Petroleum products raise environmental red flags even before they are burned. Extracting them from the earth is an energy-intensive process that can damage local ecosystems. Shipping fuels can also consume a lot of energy, and creates an occasional environmental disaster such as an oil spill. As world demand rises, and unconventional fuel sources, such as oil sands, become more economically viable, the ecological impacts of petroleum extraction might also increase dramatically. That?s one more reason why fuel efficiency is so important.

Air Quality

Vehicles are the UK?s biggest air quality compromisers, producing about one-third of all U.K. air pollution. The smog, carbon monoxide, and other toxins emitted by vehicles are especially troubling because they leave tailpipes at street level, where humans breathe the polluted air directly into their lungs. That can make auto emissions an even more immediate health concern than toxins emitted high in the sky by industrial smokestacks.

[DaveR]

Strictly on the issue of cycling on the pavement, IMHO if you are more than about 12 years old you shouldn't be there unless you have a specific, proper reason, and you get back on the road as soon as you can. A general belief that roads are dangerous ain't good enough. If you are on the pavement you have to be scrupulous about deferring to pedestrians i.e. if there is no-one about it may be OK to pedal, but slowly because people might come out of buildings etc. If there are people about, you should get off and push. On shared use paths you should still go slower than on the road and defer to pedestrians who are more vulnerable than you.

I'm not often bothered by people cycling on the pavement in ED but I agree that for some reason Barry Road is the worst, and teenagers the most common culprits.

[uncleglen]

I'm not playing top trumps- as a driver I frequently encounter stupid cyclists who weave in and out of traffic so you lose them from your mirrors, jump the red light just as you are moving off from your green light, ride 2 abreast. I do my best to 'treat them like a small car' as it says in the Highway code or somewhere, but they don't exactly behave like one. All this twaddle just reinforces my view that there is hardly any such thing as an 'accident' it's mostly human error and totally avoidable on all sides.

[Manda]

Wow, I can honestly say this has never bothered me.

As long as people cycle slowly and give pedestrians right of way, I can't see the harm in it, surely it's more about being an arsehole, than cycling on the pavement per se. I worry for cyclists and sometimes I think they have to cycle on pavements to stay safe.

Live and let live (a little).

[northlondoner]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Roads were not designed with cyclists in mind and

> as a consequence are often very dangerous to cycle

> on.

>

> The only time I cycle on the pavement is where the

> available road space is so dangerous I'm not

> prepared to risk my life by staying on the road.

>

> There needs to be a re-think of how our public

> spaces, including roads and pavements are shared

> because cycling is set to continue to increase in

> popularity and the needs of all users need to be

> accommodated in ways that make travelling safer

> for everyone.

Only rethink needed is your attitude. Push the damn bike on the pavement . Riding it is selfish and dangerous

[Manda]

Have to agree with Uncleglen. I think there are so many people cycling now (which is a good thing) that there should be a lessons and a road test and licence scheme. So many cyclists are often unwittingly dangerous (to themselves and others) and could do with some knowledge of the Highway Code and road safety training. Knowing how to signal clearly, deal with crappy drivers, create a buffer zone around yourself and respect pedestrians etc is vital because they are so vulnerable.

I think if you are cycling on the pavement (unless you're just being an idiot) it's usually for genuine safety reasons, a horrible junction you want to avoid etc, and i can't really begrudge that, so the sensible thing is to get off and push or just coast at walking speed and STOP for pedestrians. It's not that hard.

Teenagers speeding along Barry Rd pavement aren't the sort of cyclists I'm referring to here.

[Callie]

It's mainly adults, & not teenagers that cycle along the pavement between the corner of Barry Rd, The Clockhouse & Peckham Rye. There should be a 'no cycling on the pavement' sign put up, with a fine warning or something. That might hopefully act as a deterrant. If this corner of the road is so dangerous that cyclists feel they need to bypass via the pavement, they should walk it but cycling full speed round the corner along the pavement expecting pedestrians to jump out of their way into the road or be ploughed into is unacceptable & dangerous.